Republican attorneys from six GOP-led states recently filed a lawsuit against President Joe Biden’s popular plan for canceling student debt, but they face a steep legal challenge in convincing a federal court in Missouri to block the plan from taking effect before the midterms.
If successful, the lawsuit could block the Biden administration’s plan to provide up to $20,000 of student debt relief to federal Pell Grant recipients and $10,000 for others making less than $125,000 a year during the pandemic. However, in order to win a preliminary injunction to block the program from taking effect while facing legal challenges, the attorneys general must provide evidence that forgiving student debt will cause “irreparable harm” to the plaintiffs — in this case, the state governments of South Carolina, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas.
That’s a tall legal order given that canceling student debt would be a financial boon — and a source of stress relief — for the up to 40 million people the Biden administration estimates to be eligible for debt cancelation. Of those, nearly 20 million could see their entire remaining balance wiped clean after years of living with college debt hanging over their heads. Student debt cancelation is extremely popular among younger voters, and Biden saw his approval ratings improve after announcing the plan.
Ayesha Whyte, a former assistant attorney general for Washington, D.C, said the GOP lawsuit may not sit well with millions of voters with student debt, but there are likely political reasons for attempting to block or delay the program before the midterms.
“The strategy by these six Republican Attorney Generals is to oppose Biden and possibly garner some political favor with their governors or a certain part of their constituents, but these suits can delay debt relief for those that really need it and to ignore that … it’s thoughtless,” Whyte told Truthout in an interview.
Polling suggests the debt relief plan is popular and will bring likely voters out to the polls in November, with 46 percent saying they are more likely to vote thanks to student debt relief.
The Biden administration now faces multiple legal challenges to the student debt cancelation program in addition to the lawsuit from the six states. At least four lawsuits seeking to block the program were filed by activist attorneys, private citizens and right-wing legal groups over the past week, and more are expected, according to Inside Higher Ed.
The lawsuits make similar legal arguments that read like a litany of GOP talking points. The conservatives behind the lawsuits claim Biden’s debt cancelation program, announced in August and set to take effect this month, is illegal without additional legislation from Congress to authorize the executive branch to take action. Democrats say the lawsuits just go to show that the GOP puts profits over working people, while activists call it a “sham.”
The Biden administration claims authority to cancel debt under a 2003 law allowing the secretary of education to protect student borrowers in an emergency, in this case the COVID-19 pandemic. Republicans point out that Biden has said that the pandemic is “over,” suggesting we are no longer in an emergency, but it’s unclear if a judge would agree to this alleged discrepancy considering the pandemic’s lingering economic impacts.
Echoing the GOP’s attack lines ahead of the midterms, the state attorneys general also claim that canceling student debt would contribute to inflation, although experts say any economic impact would be minor. (As Truthout’s Sharon Zhang has reported, Republicans have cited other motives for opposing student debt cancelation, such as maintaining the financial leverage used to coerce low-income people into joining the military.)
The lawsuits also argue that the plan is unfair to private individuals who worked to pay off their student debt, but Whyte said few people have come forward to explain how they would be harmed by the canceling of student debt for themselves or others.
“There are certain people that murmur under their breaths, ‘I paid so you should have to pay as well,’ and, ‘Hey, we don’t want to add to the national debt,’ but those are complaints, they are not legal actions,” Whyte said.
In order to block the plan with a preliminary injunction, the Republican attorneys general must show “irreparable harm” to the plaintiff states, because the lawsuit was brought on behalf of the states, not individual citizens. In the complaint, they argue student debt cancelation could interfere with states’ higher education programs and hurt states financially, but even if states must adjust their budgets, Whyte said these challenges do not rise to the level of “irreparable harm.”
Still, these legal challenges have a political purpose as part of a broader GOP strategy to delay debt forgiveness until after voters head to the polls in November.
“Everyone wants to feel like they are doing something, so what you do is test the waters,” Whyte said, describing the GOP litigation strategy. “Will this or that lawsuit move forward? And then each legal challenge is piece of a potential delay. Can we delay this until the midterms, or even delay this until after another election in 2024?”
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.